Essential Reading

Some say that Prince Michael of Albany has a more legitimate claim to the throne of England than the Windsors. Are they right? And why are the Windsors and the mainstream media delberately ignoring him?

More than being an insider’s confirmation of the power of the pro-Israel lobby over Congress, the former US Senator’s letter also calls into question Noam Chomsky’s increasingly suspect looking motives

Long before it became a crime in some countries to question the Holocaust, in fact before it is even supposed to have happened, Zionists were invoking the figure of “Six Million” and talking of a sacrifice for Israel

Could it be that certain powers have a vested interest in keeping our real history under wraps? Because a great deal has been unearthed which is completely at odds with conventional notions regarding the origins of what we know today as America

The terror outrages in Britain last year may not have been the work of “Muslim extremists”. A series of virtually unreported events in a Birmingham hotel suggest the covert involvement of Britain’s intelligence agencies in orchestrating events

The evidence is in and it’s irrefutable: scientists have discovered traces of hi-tech explosives in the WTC debris. Which means the UK/US/Israel will have to stage another event on the scale of 9/11 to counter the brushfire this report will ignite

President Jacques Chirac warned Thursday that France could respond with nuclear weapons if it was hit in state-sponsored terrorist attack.

Although officials emphasised that Chirac’s comments were not aimed at Tehran, the warning came as France worked with other Western nations to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power.

“Nuclear deterrence … is not aimed at dissuading fanatic terrorists,” Chirac said in a speech at a nuclear submarine base in the western region of Brittany.

“Leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, just like anyone who would envisage using, in one way or another, arms of mass destruction, must understand that they would expose themselves to a firm and fitting response from us,” he said. “This response could be conventional. It could also be of another nature.”

Chirac, who has the power to decide on deploying nuclear weapons, said there should be no doubt “about our will and our capacity to use nuclear arms” if the country’s vital interests are threatened.

Although Chirac did not specify which regional powers, some observers see it as a veiled reference to Iran with its links to militant Islamic groups.

A defense expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research, Bruno Tertrais said Chirac was not changing the threshold for use of French nuclear weapons but the array of threats that could trigger a nuclear response.

“This is a message to any kind of regional power that might believe it could bypass French nuclear deterrence by using terrorist means,” Tertrais said.

In other words, nothing has changed since the Cold War. Only the names are different along with protagonists so it’s no longer called the “Cold War” but the “War on Terror”.

Whatever its called though the effect is the same. To keep humanity divided, with one group or power block at odds with another with the constant threat of conflict hanging over us all.

In plain language, divide and rule is still the operative principle as we move into the next phase of the “War on Terror”.